From the Washingtom Times today:
The fact is that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not infallible. It hasn't been since Darwin himself acknowledged that gaps in the fossil record could eventually undermine his theory of common descent. One of those gaps occurs right before the Cambrian Explosion -- a biological "big bang" that happened about 530 million years ago. Scientists have been unable to uncover clear precursors to the huge amount of new species that arose from the explosion. Their failure has led many to wonder if all life forms indeed branched off from a common ancestor, as Darwin theorized.
Of course, to explain anomalies like the Cambrian Explosion requires a little imagination -- hence the theory of intelligent design. Put simply, ID theory rejects the role that random mutations play in evolution. To account for evolutionary change, and as a way of making sense of life systems so complex that randomness couldn't possibly account for it all, ID theorists prefer the notion that an "intelligent cause" guides change. It is on this point that ID theory departs so dramatically from Darwin.
It is also why Darwinists reject ID scientists as a bunch of creationists. Again, this is unfair -- but also beyond the scope of the Kansas debate. The scientists joining the debate in Topeka aren't necessarily interested in replacing Darwin with ID theory, and certainly not with the Biblical account of creation. For them, Darwin's theory is so riddled with holes that to teach it to students unquestioningly is a disservice and inimical to the definition of science.
And it is just this legitimate scientific debate that Darwinists refuse to have. "The defense of Darwin's theory ... has fallen into the hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible and ignoring it when not," wrote David Berlinski recently in the Wichita Eagle. Mr. Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, is widely recognized as a leading Darwinian skeptic. He continues, "It is not a strategy calculated to induce confidence in the scientific method." It also doesn't help our students.
Conspicuous by its absence from your post is any indication by you that this article came from the opinion and editorial section not the science and technology section.
The Washington Times has its good points, but it is owned by the Rev Moon, who gave us "Icons of Evolution" and whose mission is to remove science from American classrooms.
I guess that would be good the Korean economy, not that I am suggesting a conspiracy or anything. But it is good tactics to use your competitor's strength agains him.
The WashTimes and the creationist Discovery Institute are both associated with the moonies. It doesn't surprise me they'd say this.
The WashTimes is a powerful conservative voice. But this creationism gig is it's Achilles heel, because there does exist hard core proof that evolution is real. I guarantee you well see loads of it in the media over the next few years.
If conservatives persist in this, we're now seeing the apex of the conservative moment.
And we haven't even gotten a supreme court nominee yet.
I just can't believe these people are that stupid to think that pushing creationism is so much more important than fighting abortion and terrorism and such.
or a LOT!